Australian Politics Forum - IPCC models vs Observed Data

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11070 Australia Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #90 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:55pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am: Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm: Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done! They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given Look at the fine print Cerberus its all there....
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 62097 Here Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #91 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm: Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done! Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21376 Gender:	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #92 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:11pm Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm: Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all. So the models aren't being updated? or perhaps AR5models from the draft and final reports.
Back to top	IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #93 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:56pm

Ajax wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 6:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 11:10am:

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

They'd be even more impressive if the sources were given Cheesy

Look at the fine print Cerberus its all there.... Cool

No it's not

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #94 - Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 10:12pm

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2015 at 7:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Ajax is sure putting up some powerful arguments backed up with graphs & charts - well done!

Yes he is comparing data with 25 year old models. Hard to see any relevance at all.

Yes the 1990 predictions about today right now have FAILED....!!!!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #95 - Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 9:34am

A few preliminary questions:

What were the assumptions on emission levels on the original studies?

Are you comparing apples with pears? (eg University of Alabama Hootenany Lower Trop. temperatures instead of Surface Temperatures)

With that graph, who was the manufacturer this time ? Was it the Gray Nomad (Bob Tisdale) ? Watts up with my brain Watts? Jo SuperNova or Dazzling Dave Evans?

Has Christopher Monkton been manufacturing graphs again?
or
Did McIntyred of Oil and Gas Exploration fix the graph himself?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 9:41am by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #96 - Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am

Rocket Scientist
In this article in the Australian newspaper David wrote “I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.” Ever since, a main warmist response to David’s critiques of the carbon dioxide theory is that he claimed to be a rocket scientist but isn’t (example), rather than to argue with the data or the logic.

He said that once, in order to identify himself to the political hierarchy in Canberra as that guy who wrote a world-leading intellectual product in carbon accounting for the Australian Greenhouse Office. No, David never worked on rockets. Yes, David does work at that level. “Rocket scientist” is widely used in the US to mean anyone capable of doing rocket science, and applies to most hard technical PhDs at the handful of top institutions (see David’s background). Or at least that is what it meant in common parlance in the US in the 1980s. As it happens, after Stanford David interviewed at JPL (NASA) in Pasadena, but decided on a Silicon Valley job instead.

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it. The latter leads to authoritarianism and corruption, is profoundly unscientific, and goes against the Enlightenment (see this introduction).

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #97 - Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 12:24pm

Wow, repetition sure makes it more powerful.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

Naturally we would urge you to look at the contents of what is said, not on who says it.

Naturally you should also look at his qualifications. He is not a rocket scientist; is he a "climate scientist"?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 10:54am:

who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol

So is he some type of accountant? You do realise for Kyoto, they didn't include native forests?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data Reply #98 - Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 2:20pm ..flippin' 'eck
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #99 - Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 5:54pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 9:34am:

A few preliminary questions:

What were the assumptions on emission levels on the original studies?

Are you comparing apples with pears? (eg University of Alabama Hootenany Lower Trop. temperatures instead of Surface Temperatures)

With that graph, who was the manufacturer this time ? Was it the Gray Nomad (Bob Tisdale) ? Watts up with my brain Watts? Jo SuperNova or Dazzling Dave Evans?

Has Christopher Monkton been manufacturing graphs again?
or
Did McIntyred of Oil and Gas Exploration fix the graph himself?

Listen John if you have a document that proves the IPCC predictions were indeed correct please present it.

Others its just hot air my friend.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #100 - Jun 4^th, 2015 at 1:19am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

By "personal attacks" Gizmo - are you referring to people that show you up to be a bald-faced liar?

Do you remember when you told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up"?

It was on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461/24#24

You were asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your statement - but you never did, did you. Because you are a liar.

I am sorry if pointing out that you tell lies is what you consider a "personal attack". But if your don't like it - perhaps you should stop telling lies.

Why don't you start right here. You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

How about your show us some evidence to support that - or, if you can't to that - apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Could you do that Gizmo?

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie,

No Gizmo - it was a lie. You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie. Not a matter of opinion

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',

I don't "believe" it to be wrong. All published empirical data says it is wrong. you are a liar.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

which incidentally I have not been "shown to be" as you claim, only accused( and wrongly too).

No - you have been shown to be a liar. The data from the organisations tha measure global glacial mass balance has been shown to you many times. You are a liar.

Here ist is again liar:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

I did provide some links to back up my claim, which you misinterpreted as not showing an increase in overall Antarctic ice mass.

No you didn't liar. You showed no evidence to support your claim that global glacial mass balance was "going up".

Prove me wrong and re-post your links. Come on liar - prove me wrong.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

And given the way you work, any other links I use to show either a 'slowing' of the predicted/claimed Arctic ice loss, or even a relative increase in the yearly average ice mass at the Arctic will be rejected due to which site hosts the links, rather than who wrote and researched the paper or the contents of the study.

You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie.

We are waiting liar - show us evidence - don't change the subject

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

p.s if you want to identify a 'bald-faced lie' try one of these: "The science is settled", "98% of scientists agree with AGW" etc. THOSE are outright, deliberate falsehoods, designed to deceive (which is the definition of a lie)

You said global glacial mass balance was "going up". That is a lie.

We are waiting liar - show us evidence - don't change the subject.

What a nasty, pathetic little liar you are. How many times are you going to run away from the fact tag you were caught red-handed telling lies?

You said: "global glacial mass balance was "going up"."

Still waiting liar to see any evidence of this. Actually - we all know there is no evidence of this - we are waiting to see what sort of human being you are. You were caught telling lies. And you try to squirm out of it like a 3 year old

What a pathetic piece of poo you are.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #101 - Jun 4^th, 2015 at 6:40am

Ajax wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2015 at 5:54pm:

Listen John if you have a document that proves the IPCC predictions were indeed correct please present it.

Others its just hot air my friend.

The trouble is that you wouldn't recognise anything that showed predictions to be correct because it's against your religion. (Denial of Climate Science). You place your faith in born-again Southern Christians like Roy Spencer.

You maintain that there has been no warming for 17 years, yet you refuse to generate a simple line of best fit using a spreadsheet to prove your point.

You are the hot air merchant, not me. My data is published empirical data that is backed up by countless other scientific studies.

You prefer your global temperatures to be Southern Fried (cooked), because your agenda doesn't care about the facts - just about playing down any evidence that would interrupt your status quo.

Well, it really doesn't matter what a few eccentrics with their fingers in their ears think. Eventually you people will die off anyway. The vast majority of your "heroes" are in their geriatric decay stages.

Back to top

IP Logged

innocentbystander.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4723
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #102 - Jun 4^th, 2015 at 7:01am

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2015 at 1:19am: